Planning and basement created due to made up ground

[Footsoldier888]

This situation has arisn due to a two storey rear extention being built on a sloping site to begin with (sloping down to the back garden), plus some poor ground that meant the founds had to go deeper.

A basement has thus been created at the back. What happens in this instance? Are you technically supposed to halt the build and put an amended application in or if it has happened as part of the building process is it regarded as de minimis as far as planning is concerned? Or can you get acceptance from the planning department like a letter of comfort and continue with the build???

Just wondering what the process is, is it a black and white situation or more of a grey area???

 

[Nakajo]

If the engineering works were necessary for the works above the 'basement', then it seems to me that the basement itself is PD

 

[wessex101]

If it is just a large void then technically it isn't a basement/cellar/undercroft and should not require any amendment to the original application.

If you intend to provide access then that could be considered a material alteration depending on what you intend to use if for.

If it is just for occasional storage and the external appearance will not change from the approved plans I would just crack on and not worry about notifying the planners.

 

[Footsoldier888]

Luckily it isn't me but I was looking at what these folk had done and what the planning answer might be.

Nakajo perhaps you are right but I am not sure if it was the builder or the BCO who made the decision about the ground being 'bad'! In principle if it was the BCO say then it would be likely to be PD, where as if it was the builder it might be less clear?

Wessex what was built was an enclosed cellar with outside concrete steps leading up to the garden. So clearly a big alteration to their building regs docs but as I understand it it was all signed off by Building Control.

Visually it is the same apart from a safety wall enclosing the steps down to the cellar door. They were saying it was for storage but it would have conversion potential.

It is also a smallish back garden, which the stairs, which go across the width, have made I guess 2m smaller in length.

 

[wessex101]

I'm confused now, I thought it was a build in progress.

I don't see why the need for deeper foundations meant the oversite was lowered thus creating the cellar. That sounds like a weasely excuse and they fully intended to create the cellar.

What was/is the planning status of the 2 storey extension, was it built under PD or a Planning Application? With the cellar I cannot see how it could be permitted development as it surely becomes 3 storeys tall.

 

[Footsoldier888]

No - it is all finished wessex.

Yes it was a full planning application. It is someone I am trying to assist, a nice guy who was building his own extension. I don't think he had bad intentions but I think what may have happened is the digger was there and he may have seen the opportunity so to speak, being on this slope and got carried away.

Certainly there were no piles or anything of that nature involved. As you indicated above, it does look on the face of it like gaming the system somewhat. Yes it is three storeys.

I think they have fallen into the position a lot do in that because it was all signed off by building control they incorrectly believe everything has been approved and they have planning permission. But they have clearly deviated from the plans as passed.

There hasn't been a problem yet anyway. Is it right if he waits the four years he could get a LDC for it? I don't know where it leaves them insurance wise either, it seems pretty chancy to me tbh but he can't be the first I guess.

 

[wessex101]

4 years could be tricky. If the approval had a condition that works must be in accordance with approved plans then breach of condition is 10 years.

If overall height of building hasn't changed and only difference is external steps and I assume a door then they can keep their heads down and hope no one notices or otherwise it is fairly trivial so maybe a non-material amendment application. Even if it is deemed to be a material change it doesn't sound very contentious if it is just an external store so could get approval. If it looks like it could be used as a room then it would need careful consideration before risking going to the planners.

 

[Footsoldier888]

Yes the approval did have that condition.

Thanks that is really helpful because it does have potential for conversion to a wide but thin usable space of some kind but they may get the benefit of the doubt as it is a thin but quite wide full height zone that then steps up the slope to the storgae area. So it is important they don't attempt to convert that space.

The overall height is the same, the roof was all hand cut.

 

[Nakajo]

My understanding is that the time limits relate to the nature of the development, not the nature of the breach. This is a dwelling, and not a change of use, and therefore the limit would be 4 years.